Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation

Abstract

That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider nature's intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of nature's intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge nature's intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for nature's intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that nature's intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging nature's intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for nature's welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging nature's intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that nature's intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom.

The Influence of People’s Practices and Beliefs on Conservation: A Case Study on Human-Carnivore Relationships from the Multiple Use Buffer Zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, India

“…For example, pastoralists feel reassured by their faith in their spirit protectors and experience a sense of security from powerful forces in the forests including wild animals. Nelson, Singh, Vucetich, Woodhouse and many others have reported this motivating function of religious beliefs on believers and that such belief systems are commonly practiced, even today, in many traditional societies across the world (Nelson 1974;Singh 2012;Vucetich et al 2015;Woodhouse et al 2015). Further, pastoralists in Panna adhere to cultural and religious norms towards forests and wildlife that by coincidence or conscious design reduce direct human impacts and also interactions with wildlife.…”

“…Human caused mortality of carnivores through direct killing of carnivores, keeping a blind eye to their poaching or decreasing support for their conservation are all reasoned to their decline globally (Wikramanayake et al 2011;Inskip et al 2013;Traves and Bruskotter 2014;Rabinowitz 2014;Madhusudan 2015). Dissimilar to the above situations, there are also documented cases where local people show much restrain and tolerate large carnivores in spite of the threats they pose to human interests, allowing coexistence (Jones et al 2008;Chapron et al 2014;Goodale et al 2015;Vucetich et al 2015).…”

Debunking myths about Aldo Leopold's land ethic

“…There are other authors who write as though Leopold was referring to ecosystems as the focus of the land ethic (such as Hettinger and Throop 1999, Knight 1996, and Vucetich et al 2015, and for these authors, it is less clear why they equate "biotic community" with "ecosystem". Perhaps these authors are simply interpreting the purported "summary moral maxim" in what they take to be contemporary terms (similar to the what seems to have happened with "stability"; see Section 2.5).…”

Introduction

“…extinction we not only lose their evolutionary heritage, adaptations, ecosystem functions, and their potential uses, but also diminish the inherent resilience and intrinsic value that biodiversity brings (Smith et al 2011;Vucetich et al 2015).…”

“…Yet it has become clear that learning to "see" plants is a cultural endeavor. How we choose to frame this understanding, whether in anthropocentric, utilitarian, or ecocentric terms may have very tangible impacts on both them and us (Chan 2008;De Luca et al 2012;Lewis-Jones 2016;Lidskog 2011;Jepson and Canney 2003;Sullivan 2009;Vucetich et al 2015).…”